setting yourself up as a moral gatekeeper

Morality has little, if anything to do with it. I want conspiracies to be a place to discuss conspiracies and related topics. You want it to be a place with vapid shitposting.

And notice how your argument has changed as well

What "argument"? Nothing has changed at all. You posted junk that wasn't appropriate on the community and i called you out - end. There isn't any argument at all.

Out of curiosity, what "argument" do you think there was initially, and when did it change?

Oh, now you're just being silly

Is it silly to want conspiracies to be for conspiracies and discussions thereof (even if you don't agree with them yourself - which is fine)?

Is it silly to not want shitposting like yours to waste peoples time, troll, and generally bring the quality of the community down?

If so, then yes - i am "silly".

Making fun of flat earthers is always legit

Not according to rule #1 here, no. However i suspect clemaneuverers probably agrees with you.

It's always easy (and embarrassing) to "make fun", but it is much harder to actually understand instead.

It was put here to annoy people

I know, which is why it doesn't belong on conspiracies and is merely shitposting.

Making fun of / harassing people that you don't agree with and/or put stock in their conspiratorial views is the opposite of the purpose of this community. Making fun of the (faux, in your view) conspiracy itself arguably is - but you didn't do that at all.

making multiple reports that are not justified, making multiple spurious reports

These are the same, right?

reporting comments for behavior that you yourself have just engaged in

Does chronology matter here? "They started it" playground rules?

Or do you forfeit your right to report a user for breaking rules if you yourself violate the rules in a subsequent response?

making multiple targeted reports of a user you are in an argument with regardless of the content of the comments.

So making only one report would be appropriate in that case? I recognize this makes more work for you mods, but shouldn't you expect a report each time a user violates the rules - regardless of how many times they do it within a particular comment thread?

Also, argument is a bit tricky/murky/subjective - right? It's ok to break the rules if you are in an argument?

I'm working on a new rules page for this forum which will explain each rule in a bit more detail - I don't want to clutter up the sidebar too much with explication.

Thanks! I think ideally the sidebar stuff could be replaced by a single link to it and message that all must read and abide by the rules.

I ask the above for general clarification which will hopefully go into that rules page. I don't report users in any case, and instead remind them that those rules make the community a better place and help them to more effectively communicate/contribute. Perhaps i should just report them instead? Knowing what mods would prefer and why would be helpful.

Ah, so now you get it

Yes, but do you? I "got it" from the initial post, but you still seem to be missing it. This doesn't belong on this forum, unless it is conspiracy related. Because you don't think it is a conspiracy, it is shitposting which makes the board worse.

the same way people say Pizzagate (or pick your poison) is not a conspiracy.

Discussing why this, in your opinion/view, is NOT a conspiracy would also be appropriate to the board. What you posted wasn't and isn't, which is the point.

I did already, it's in the title, you just missed it

I think you may have missed it. According to you, there isn't any conspiracy in your post and therefore it isn't appropriate to post here.

Now, assuming you wanted to discuss the view that others have about this event being fake/fraudulent and part of a larger conspiracy - in that case i would consider this post legitimate/appropriate.

It was mean of me to make, and I apologize.

I am called far worse than "lacking the capacity to recognize subtlety/poetry" quite regularly. Apology accepted, and please think nothing of it.

directly related to this board

Can you describe in what way you think this post is related to this board?

It's not for poetry...

I did. Where is the conspiracy?

You wanting to annoy people isn't a conspiracy.

And you think this is (/related to) a conspiracy?

Lol. It really is sad to see you continue to respond this way. It is also against the policies on this community.

Are you really so incapable of responding to the content of my comments that you can't do anything but hurl insult like a pitiful tantruming child?

I'm starting to hope that you are a bot, for your sake :(

How long would that ruler have to be to measure the curvature of an ocean?

Most of the oceans don't freeze over, but the ones which do freeze (a few miles or so of them anyway - enough to measure such curvature) you could do with the same standard ruler the crazy (and obsessively committed, no doubt) person in my first hypothetical used.

Are you implying that it's impossible to measure the curvature of the Earth unless the surface is perfectly smooth?

Again, i am confused by your interpretation of the things i've said. What specifically did i say to make you think i implied that? Please provide specific quotes, as it will help me to understand the disconnect and possibly communicate with you more effectively in the future!

I was saying that measuring the surface of water to determine its curvature (or distinct lack thereof as the case may be) is much easier when the water is frozen solid - and mostly smooth. Accounting for and navigating topology is obviously not impossible - but it is much more difficult.

Such as?

A surveyor's/trundle wheel for one! Lol.

You claimed that the link I provided did not provide a method to measure the curvature of the Earth

It's not really a claim, but what i said was that the link you provided was not an example of directly measuring the surface of water and measuring it to curve convexly the way the globe model describes. There is no measurement of any curvature OR the surface of water in the link you provided, This isn't so much "a claim" as it is plainly obvious and without any possible refutation.

Let me make it very simple

Agreed! This is what i mean by "taking more bites before you are done chewing the one in your mouth". We are still only discussing one claim - my first one. We can get to the rest once we are done with it.

You responded to that claim that there was a procedure to measure the curvature of the surface of water (specifically the curvature described by the globe model) and then provided a link to a procedure which didn't in any way do that. Pretty simple right?

If there is a method to measure the curvature of the earth, it also measures the curvature of the oceans covering the earth.

This seems a bit like a tautology. The oceans are a part of that earth, so if you had a method to measure all of the earth - you would necessarily have to measure the oceans in order to do it... We are currently struggling to measure (even purely in imagination/hypothetically!) even a small to moderately sized lake (frozen or otherwise) - so measuring the entirety of the world instead is obviously quite out of the question.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes! And i pose the same question to you - forever and always while discussing. Please ask me questions if you do not understand, or disagree! The more specific the question, the more likely i can provide the specific answer you are looking for (assuming i have it to give, of course!)

There are many approaches, but the most practical / easiest to execute are done when the water is frozen in place.

You could use a ruler in that case, if you were crazy and/or wanted to. There are, of course many more efficient ways than that.

Are you claiming that measuring the surface curvature of water is impossible?

How on earth did you misunderstand my previous comment that badly? Could you please quote what you read and how you interpreted it to come to this conclusion? I was saying the opposite of that.

What point are you trying to make?

There are a few, but as i said - we should finish chewing the one bite before moving on to others. The main point is that the initial claim i made is correct - even though it is admittedly wild to recognize and accept.

You claim that the method i presented doesn't work

When? Could you quote me? I think you have misunderstood.

We are still talking about the one clam that i made. Nothing has been added or changed about it. Best not to "go for another bite" until we're done chewing the food already in our mouths, don't you think?

You won't because you can't.

Can't what? Can't come up with a procedure to measure the curvature of still water directly? Are you sure you aren't describing your own shortcomings?

It isn't hard to measure the surface of still water directly, and there are many ways to go about it. But you always have to measure the surface of the water in order to do it.

It's not poorly worded

For the target audience (ndt and those with similar worldviews), i say it is. Their reflexive response will be the "meniscus defense". Exactly what eisenhorn did.

I appreciate why it does not appear poorly worded to you, or perhaps to me - because we know exactly what he means and would not misconstrue it the same way others commonly would.

Only a disingenious dick would use an equivocation after being totally called out.

Lol, it is to be expected though. "Q: Why don't we see curved water? A: We do, they are called water droplets!", is completely reasonable and the expected/default response from those of the presumptive (and ubiquitously taught) worldview. Which is why such questions directed at them should be more carefully worded.

You're just enabling this pussy to act like a bitch

Lol. I think it is important to have empathy, and understanding in these interactions. Even when met with hostility and even belligerence. Irrational anger/ire against the topic is still earnest interest in it - after all! Many of us researchers begin our journey this way.

We can't, and shouldn't, take responsibility for their behavior - only our own! We should remember that these ostensible "opponents", assuming them earnest, are actually fellow students (or aspiring) with differing views. If our views are correct, and/or theirs are incorrect (or vice versa) - continued collaborative discussion/exploration is the most important thing. Argument is for idiots. There is no "winning" a conversation, and the earnest pursuit of truth (and further will to share it) is not a silly contest (nor should it be allowed to devolve into it).

I can think of several ways, but to directly measure the surface of the water (for curvature or anything else) - you have to actually measure the surface of the water. Right?

You are an odd little bot.

Forgot you existed

And yet here you are, compelled to respond and unable to simply be silent and actually ignore/forget. Don't you have a "life" to get back to? Why are you wasting time here?

These are rhetorical questions, please don't bother answering - the answers are obvious.

But it measures the curvature

No, you merely believe it does. What device measures this curvature?

You calculate the curvature you assume is there using measurements of things which are NOT the curvature. Please let me know if you do not understand me, or still disagree!

Your reasoning is circular.

Please formally/explicitly describe it so i can understand what you mean. From my point of view, using calculations which depend on the world being spherical to "measure" that believed curvature is plainly the circular logic.

Of course it is an experiment. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Your definition for experiment is wrong. There is no hypothesis, there is no iv or dv, there are no controls - it is in no way an experiment. It is merely a few measurements followed by a calculation which assumes / requires the world is/be spherical.

Once I explained to you how to observe it you just moved the goal posts to "yeah but that's not the way i imagined It".

There are no goal posts to move, and this is merely a discussion. You are NOT observing (or measuring) the "curved water". Full stop. You are measuring something which is NOT that curvature and then calculating curvature assuming it were the cause. There is a large and important difference which i am hoping is not lost on you. The water was never curved from your vantage and you never saw any curved water - right?

You are starting with very broad statements and once you are shown to be wrong, you add conditions

You may feel that way, but that is certainly not my intention. My original claim was that no one has ever directly measured the curvature the globe model describes in still water - including frozen lakes which are many miles long. No conditions have been added nor have you shown this claim to be wrong (though i would be pleased if you could!).

If the Earth isn't curved, what are you measuring when you do the experiment?

The same things that you measure when you believe it is!

The things you actually measure don't change when your beliefs of what they mean do. In any case, you are not measuring the surface of water in any way - obviously.

It is also important to recognize that the procedure you linked to is in no way an experiment. Experiment has a rigorous and inflexible definition in science, and we all need to do a better job not to use it incorrectly/colloquially. Calling this measurement and subsequent calculation an experiment is an attack on science, and incorrect colloquial definitions for scientific vernacular are a primary reason for the ubiquitous scientific illiteracy we suffer from/with.

The curvature is visible. That's why you see the tops of ships at the horizon before you see the rest of the ship.

That was answer #2. However, technically/literally this is NOT seeing curvature and it is important to recognize that. The curvature is NOT visible while watching ships, as the horizon always appears flat.

The observation you mentioned is interpreted and the existence of curvature is inferred from it. This is very different than seeing (or measuring) the curvature inferred to be there.

That's like the most basic observation one can make and what I learned as a little child when it came to the topic of the round earth.

You, me, and most everybody else too. We are taught such things as little children, long before we have the capacity or freedom to critically evaluate or refute such interpretations.

It truly baffles me how anyone can deny that.

I haven't come across many who do deny it. The observation of ships over the horizon is demonstrable and repeatable. In flat earth research, it is most often the interpretation of the observation at issue, not the observation itself. Denying what is trivially demonstrable and observable is silly / borderline crazy.

Why would you ever claim that nobody has done this?

Because that is the conclusion that i have arrived at after a lot of study on the subject. There is not now, nor ever was in history, a procedure (or further, measurement obtained from such a procedure) to directly measure the convex curvature (described by the globe model) of the surface of still water under natural conditions. In fact, all the procedures for doing so in hydrostatics over three plus centuries show clearly that the surface of still water (barring negligible surface tension artifacts) is always flat, level, and horizontal and cannot, by its very nature, take such a shape at rest without large amounts of energy to fight against water's inherent properties.

https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html

This is again not a measurement of the surface of still water (direct or otherwise). Such calculations (going back to the first recorded, eratosthenes) absolutely depend on the sphericity of the world in order to be meaningful. If the earth is not spherical, as these calculations assume/require, then the numbers they produce are meaningless and the cause of the observations (used to infer such sphericity) popularly believed and taught is wrong.

First answer; some of them, yes.

Second answer; all questions have merit - even the ostensibly stupid ones.

The question you were misinterpreting, for example, is certainly worth exploring - even though i agree that it is phrased poorly.

A better rephrasing (perhaps) would be, "if large bodies of water truly curve convexly the way the globe model describes - then why don't we see that curve even in frozen lakes which are hundreds of miles long?"

The bigger trouble with most all of these questions is that they won't be all that illuminating to the disinterested or the skeptical. There are "standard" answers available to all of them - which ndt, you, or anyone could provide.

The conversation and joint exploration of such questions is what is valuable/interesting, not the "quiz".

Again, using the rephrased example : a few common answers spring to mind -

1. we can't see that curvature, even in frozen lakes, because we are so relatively small and that curve is so relatively large.

2. we can see/perceive that curvature but only in, for instance, the observing of objects receding disappearing bottom first and vice versa.

3. we can see that curvature but only if we get far enough away from it - like from space.

An even better phrasing, getting closer to the real issue, would be : if the surface of water curves the way the globe model describes, then why hasn't anyone ever directly measured it - like on a frozen lake multiple miles long for instance?

Yes, it does - and i agree that it is poorly worded/phrased - but it does not claim that water droplets don't exist. That is your willful misinterpretation of it to create a strawman / falsely claim that they said/meant something they plainly didn't.

Such rhetorical tricks shouldn't be necessary - don't you agree?

According to this guy, water drops do not exist.

I agree that some of the questions are nonsense/poorly phrased (including this one) but surely you don't need to willfully misinterpret the questions and make strawman claims in order to criticize them.

As you can see in my transcribed list of the questions, this question is about large bodies of water - the example given is a lake hundreds of miles long which freezes over and demonstrably lacks the curve that it ought to have.

No one but you claimed that water droplets don't exist.

Op, what's the distance between Sydney and Santiago de Chile?

There is obviously no distance which would require the world to be any particular shape (flat, spherical, dodecahedron, etc.)

1. [Considering the earth is an oblate spheroid, slightly bulging at the middle due to its rotation, and that water is much more free to move under the influence of both gravitational pull and that rotation] Why is there land at the equator [why isn't the land at the equator completely covered in water]?
2. Can i see the earth's curvature [with my own eyes - not a photo/footage] or not? [and if so, how?]
3. Why haven't we ever seen curved water [even on large still frozen lakes, some of which are hundreds of miles long]?
4. How are we breathing right now [if space is a vacuum and our atmosphere is constantly heated by the sun - and hence rising]?
5. Is the earth very very small, or is the sun very very near [considering crepuscular rays from the sun are plainly visible]
6. How does the convex lens of the atmosphere cause light to diverge - causing the presumed illusion of visible crepuscular rays [this is sometimes claimed as the/a cause of visible crepuscular rays from the sun]?
7. Why doesn't the artificial horizon (an aircraft flight instrument) roll backwards during straight and level flight?
8. Why is the coriolis effect so selective? [Some claim that projectiles like bullets and artillery must consider the rotation of the world beneath them, but in the same breath claim that airplanes are not affected and rotate with the earth - see video for more detail]
9. [Considering that things that are far away seem to be moving slower than things moving the same speed which are close to us, for example as is visible in the differing apparent speed of the road in front of us and the apparent speed of billboards in the periphery] What is the ISS flying over [as there is no visible/apparent difference in speed from the land traveling directly beneath the iss and the land in the periphery as we would expect from our experience]?
10. How can microgravity be selective? [Specific questions about space footage - see video]
11. Why are there so many craters on the side of the moon facing the earth [and why are those impacts primarily/all perpendicular to its surface considering the earth is effectively "blocking" that side - especially when the meteor is traveling perpendicularly to that visible surface]?
12. Why don't we see permanent hills, valleys, and mountains in the [surface of the] oceans [that mirror the undersea topology]?